Jump to content

Alternate History- What if Hitler had not invaded Russia, would Germany still control Western Europe today?


Recommended Posts

On 1/15/2021 at 6:10 PM, alejandro_ said:

Not really, the negotiations focused on Spain joining the war, what would be given in exchange and Gibraltar. Germany could always invade it yes, but this means opening another front when Hitler wanted to invade the Soviet Union. It also means British taking over Canary Islands

It was the fact that Hitler wanted to turn east that gave Franco the capacity to negotiate in the first place.  Otherwise, in 1940, the German negotiations with Madrid could easily have been more of the "or else we'll get another stooge to run Spain" variety.  In terms of the Canary Islands, I would be certain that the British would find these a very poor trade indeed for Gibraltar.

Quote

 I can only think of good bases in the Mediterranean/Atlantic and the possibility of taking Gibraltar. Of course, Spanish Army was significant in numbers but would need equipment. The problem for the Germans as well was that Spanish claims/demands to join the war clased with those of Vichy France.

Equipping the Spanish was presumably possible to some degree, from French army stocks.

The big problem with the German naval bases in France were that they were too close to RAF bomber bases in Britain.  Gibraltar was a much happier place for Scharnhorst and friends, not only because the air raids would be considerably fewer, but also because of a more centralized position in the Atlantic raiding war.   German fleet units could access Italy and the Med, and Italian fleet units could access the Atlantic, meaning better opportunities for coordinated naval cooperation.  In addition, having Gibraltar meant that German ships could access Italian repair yards rather than having to rely on French assistance or the run back to Germany.

In the U-boat war, Spain was also a better base than France because of the transit across the Bay of Biscay.

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

It was the fact that Hitler wanted to turn east that gave Franco the capacity to negotiate in the first place.  Otherwise, in 1940, the German negotiations with Madrid could easily have been more of the "or else we'll get another stooge to run Spain" variety.  In terms of the Canary Islands, I would be certain that the British would find these a very poor trade indeed for Gibraltar.

Equipping the Spanish was presumably possible to some degree, from French army stocks.

The big problem with the German naval bases in France were that they were too close to RAF bomber bases in Britain.  Gibraltar was a much happier place for Scharnhorst and friends, not only because the air raids would be considerably fewer, but also because of a more centralized position in the Atlantic raiding war.   German fleet units could access Italy and the Med, and Italian fleet units could access the Atlantic, meaning better opportunities for coordinated naval cooperation.  In addition, having Gibraltar meant that German ships could access Italian repair yards rather than having to rely on French assistance or the run back to Germany.

In the U-boat war, Spain was also a better base than France because of the transit across the Bay of Biscay.

Again you are making stuff up becuase you don't know what you are talking about. It was the Spanish which first approached the Germans in June 1940 post the French campaign to join in the Axis. At that point, after seeing Mussolini jump in for easy gains, the Germans were unwilling to share the spoils of victory that was expected to come soon after with a negotiated peace.

As the Battle of Britain kicked off during July, Spanish approaches were given the cold shoulder, and, as mentioned by Alejandro, the technical consensus was that the country really wasn't in position to fight a war. 

July gave way to August, and the British were not being defeated, which Franco knew first hand, cooling off any further enthusiasm to join the war. By September it was Hitler who started egging Franco to join the war against Britain (nothing was said about the East, and the German military was cool about having the Spaniards in the war). Both sides thought the other was asking for too much while giving nothing in exchange. A personal interview with Hitler and another with Mussolini in 1941 didn't change the Spanish stance and the Germans weren't about to piss off the Vichy French (who still has a sizeable fleet that could sail to join the UK) to get to Gibraltar. 

If you use google translate you can get a fair sumation here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrevista_de_Hendaya

Re geography, you forget or don't know several factors: Spain used a different rail width than the rest of Europe, the rail net is centered on Madrid on a radial basis and the infrastructure was suffering the lack of investment and the war, so basing U boats or aricraft in Spain also required investing in the transport or else they would run out of torpedoes and fuel. As for using Gibraltar, where all of the above aplplied, plus the fact that it would have to be conquered, meaning it's going to be difficult to base anything there with all the destructions, mines and obstacles. Of course, they could drop anchor in Algeciras bay, so they can be toripedoed by British subs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, R011 said:

I seem to recall that in the last go round of Axis Spain, it was noted that Spain would not be easy to invade even given the disparity in equipment.

The defensive strategic advantage to seizing Gibraltar was that it prevented Torch, Husky, Dragoon.  That is to say, it shored Italy's position up and would allow the Italians to demobilize considerable forces into the Axis labor market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2021 at 7:37 PM, RichTO90 said:

Why? Why not the U-Boot program? Why not the KM surface program? Why not the LW? Meanwhile, most of the small boat building capacity of Western Europe, Italy, and the Danube got involved in the MFP program...and still delays were endemic.

Biggest sucking chest wound industrially from the war in the East was ammunition production.   An expanded MFP program, both material and labor, could come out of just a fraction of the steel saved from that.  

Quote

Nor is there any real reason given - still - why there is "no Americans".

Because their neutrality is the current scenario premise.  If you want my opinion, the Americans are quite likely to enter the war against Germany.  

Quote

I suspect you know better, having been corrected on this over and over again. Gibraltar requires Spain and there is little chance of Franco coming in.

You think the German army required Franco's permission to occupy Spain?  

Quote

Marseilles and Toulon are great if you want a German buildup in Tunisia...why not Casablanca, Benghazi, and Oran while you're at it? The problem is you only have 779 kilometers to get from Tunis to Tripoli...and then another 1,025 to Benghazi...and then another 471 to Tobruk...and another 684 to Alexandria. You've simply dodged one bullet - the lack of throughput of the Tripolitanian and Cyrenaican ports - and walked into another bullet - the length of the land route from the ports to the AOR.

The primary advantage of Marseilles and Toulon would be in the supply of the Axis navy based in Spain.  Not only the deep water ports themselves, but the ability to charter Vichy French hulls and rail lines to carry it from Germany.   Gibraltar was a natural choke point through which all Vichy imports were required to pass.  Historically the British held that whip hand.  

WRT Egypt, Toulon via Tunisia or Malta (MFP base).  Deep water to deep water, since Libya's port capacity was already maxed out simply by Italian shipments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The defensive strategic advantage to seizing Gibraltar was that it prevented Torch, Husky, Dragoon.  That is to say, it shored Italy's position up and would allow the Italians to demobilize considerable forces into the Axis labor market.

Nonsense. It doesn't "prevent" anything, any more than La Spezia "prevented" AVALANCHE or Taranto "prevented" BAYTOWN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Biggest sucking chest wound industrially from the war in the East was ammunition production.   An expanded MFP program, both material and labor, could come out of just a fraction of the steel saved from that. 

Ammunition was always the "biggest sucking chest wound" in 20th Century mechanized mass warfare. So what?

Quote

Because their neutrality is the current scenario premise.  If you want my opinion, the Americans are quite likely to enter the war against Germany.  

The current scenario premise is silly if it fantasizes the U.S. remaining neutral after a German conquest of Western Europe and its continued assault on the sea lanes.

Quote

You think the German army required Franco's permission to occupy Spain?  

Nope, nor did I ever say that. Stop with the strawman arguments.

Quote

The primary advantage of Marseilles and Toulon would be in the supply of the Axis navy based in Spain.  Not only the deep water ports themselves, but the ability to charter Vichy French hulls and rail lines to carry it from Germany.   Gibraltar was a natural choke point through which all Vichy imports were required to pass.  Historically the British held that whip hand. 

Why are Marseilles and Toulon in France an advantage for supplying a naval base in Spain? What "Vichy French hulls" do you think were available to charter? The 2 million tons of non-French shipping chartered by the French were turned over to the British in June 1940. About half of the French merchant marine itself was seized by the British and much of the remainder were sunk or lost...ten or more ships were interned and used by the Japanese later, large numbers were interned by the US as well, and many, like many of the ships of the French fleet, fled to North Africa. There simply was no significant French merchant marine for the Germans to seize,

Quote

WRT Egypt, Toulon via Tunisia or Malta (MFP base).  Deep water to deep water, since Libya's port capacity was already maxed out simply by Italian shipments.

Again, you seem willfully ignorant of the problems associated with supply a land force directed at Egypt via Tunis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, glenn239 said:

It was the fact that Hitler wanted to turn east that gave Franco the capacity to negotiate in the first place.  Otherwise, in 1940, the German negotiations with Madrid could easily have been more of the "or else we'll get another stooge to run Spain" variety. 

What other officer could be chosen instead of Franco? The one the Germans favoured (Mola) died in an aircraft crash. By 1940 Franco was in complete control. Also, not every officer was pro-German.
 

18 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Equipping the Spanish was presumably possible to some degree, from French army stocks.

Maybe, but would Hitler risk antagonizing Vichy France? Also, other countries who supported Germany (Romania, Hungary...) received very little equipment compared to what the US/UK supplied to other Allied nations.

18 hours ago, glenn239 said:

 In terms of the Canary Islands, I would be certain that the British would find these a very poor trade indeed for Gibraltar.

Well, yes, but I was referring to the Spanish government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

It wasn't "gold reserves" it was gold extraction. The gold mining areas in northeast China were occupied by the Japanese and exploited through their puppet government there. Reportedly 2,327.337 metric tons were extracted and seized by the Japanese from 1940-1945 and used to finance the war effort.

Thanks Rich, that's quite a hefty sum then. I am surprised it is not that well know. In Spain the gold reserves sent to the USSR to pay for material has been a hot topic for decades (known as Oro de Moscú or Moscow's Gold).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

What other officer could be chosen instead of Franco? The one the Germans favoured (Mola) died in an aircraft crash. By 1940 Franco was in complete control. Also, not every officer was pro-German.
 

Maybe, but would Hitler risk antagonizing Vichy France? Also, other countries who supported Germany (Romania, Hungary...) received very little equipment compared to what the US/UK supplied to other Allied nations.

Well, yes, but I was referring to the Spanish government.

I'm sure Hitler could find a stooge to replace Franco.  Whether he could find any Spaniards to follow him is another question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Germans tried to groom Muñoz Grandes, the first commander of División Azul, as a possible replacement for Franco, but Franco got wind of that, and gave Muñoz Grandes the proverbial kick up that removed him from direct troop command, and political influence both.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

Ammunition was always the "biggest sucking chest wound" in 20th Century mechanized mass warfare. So what?

Simply providing the ammunition and replacement equipment for the meat grinder on the Eastern Front absorbed a significant chunk of Germany's industrial output.  No war in the east, a big slice of that is freed up for other things.

Quote

The current scenario premise is silly if it fantasizes the U.S. remaining neutral after a German conquest of Western Europe and its continued assault on the sea lanes.

That is by far and away the more likely scenario, yes.  But nowhere have I seen you make an opinion about Britain's chances if the war did not expand.  

Quote

Why are Marseilles and Toulon in France an advantage for supplying a naval base in Spain? What "Vichy French hulls" do you think were available to charter? The 2 million tons of non-French shipping chartered by the French were turned over to the British in June 1940. About half of the French merchant marine itself was seized by the British and much of the remainder were sunk or lost.

My understanding is that Vichy France had over a half a million tons of shipping seized by the Axis after the occupation of Vichy in 1942.   Prior to that, this had been employed in trade between Africa and Southern France, and the Americas as the British permitted.

Quote

Again, you seem willfully ignorant of the problems associated with supply a land force directed at Egypt via Tunis.

 Libya had two main ports supply Rommel's forces.  Tripoli and Benghazi.  A ton of supplies landed at Tripoli didn't give a rat's ass whether they'd come by sea from Italy, or by rail (then road) via Tunisia.  By rail or by boat then rail, it was still a ton of supply sitting in Tripoli either way.   

The interesting thing about Malta is that it was in MFP range of Tripoli and Benghazi.  Those MFP's the Germans could build with the steel they didn't need from the Eastern Front could operate from Malta to either of these ports.  And they did not require port capacity to debark since they were over-the-beach for unloading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Simply providing the ammunition and replacement equipment for the meat grinder on the Eastern Front absorbed a significant chunk of Germany's industrial output.  No war in the east, a big slice of that is freed up for other things.

What "other things"? The nice thing about ammunition is it was a chunk of metal launched at the enemy...fairly simple in terms of production. So are you going to use the primarily forged steel to build airplanes? Might want to use aluminum instead. You can build aircraft engines...except steel was never the problem there, it was engine manufacturing capacity. Tanks? Sure, but ditto. U-Boot? Okay, except that was already on its way to being a dead duck. Surface ships? Too far behind the eight ball. So what? MFP? For what real purpose? The Germany's have enough airborne oompf in 1941 for a single airborne assault and trying a Crete-like assault on Malta in early 1941 is asking for disaster. So an amphibious assault in Gozo and Comino? Sure, but sooner or later they have to attempt the leap to Malta. It'll be slow, but sure, and the RN and RAF will be nibbling away at the shipping supporting it...and then what? Hitler goes apeshit and still demands a similar assault on Crete to protect the Rumanian oil fields and refineries, which likely means that operation goes south given the attrition to resources in the Malta operation.

Quote

That is by far and away the more likely scenario, yes.  But nowhere have I seen you make an opinion about Britain's chances if the war did not expand.  

Like most, I suspect you've just never bothered to read my opinion on such and prefer to assume you know what my opinion is. It's not like I've ever kept it under wraps. Nor has anyone bothered to pin down some critical points on this scenario.

1. What does "the war did not expand" mean?

2. When does "the war did not expand"?

3. Why does "the war did not expand"?

For example, Hitler had stressed over and over again that he would attack the Soviets...22 August 1939 at the Berghof, November 1939, spring 1940, 31 July 1940...and so on and so on. When does he change his mind? Does he not send the Lehrstab to Romania in late summer 1940 as a tripwire? Yugoslavia? Greece? Does he just change his mind and decide Bolshevism is just peachy?

 

Quote

My understanding is that Vichy France had over a half a million tons of shipping seized by the Axis after the occupation of Vichy in 1942.   Prior to that, this had been employed in trade between Africa and Southern France, and the Americas as the British permitted. 

It's complicated. Most of the French merchant marine was overseas upon the armistice. In the Far East there were 31 French-flagged vessels totaling about 137,000 tons. About a dozen ended up interned and then seized by Japan. In the U.S., 14 vessels totaling 150,746 tons were interned. There was almost nothing other than coasters in the Med, but in Vichy ports there were 90 French, British, Norwegian, and other neutral vessels in their territory on the armistice. At least 38 of them were French vessels. Eventually 63 of them were placed under French flag and used for trade between Vichy and its French possessions, as well as North and South America and Asia, but the British closely monitored them and seized them if they were declared contraband, six in South African waters alone in fall 1941.

They could certainly be seized by the Germans...assuming they violated the armistice without cause and the French made no effort to resist.

Quote

Libya had two main ports supply Rommel's forces.  Tripoli and Benghazi.  A ton of supplies landed at Tripoli didn't give a rat's ass whether they'd come by sea from Italy, or by rail (then road) via Tunisia.  By rail or by boat then rail, it was still a ton of supply sitting in Tripoli either way. 

Sigh...Tunis to Tripoli is 781 road kilometers. No rail. You're adding a 1,562 kilometer round trip to get supplies from Tunis to Tripoli...and then they have to get to wherever the front is. Primarily by road, which is why one of Rommel's first actions was to requisition about a quarter of the motor transport in Tripolitania to augment his transport. Somewhere I seem to recall the calculation was that a ton of supplies landed in Tunis translated into about 100 kilos of supplies delivered at the front. Its probably an exaggeration, but not by much.

Quote

The interesting thing about Malta is that it was in MFP range of Tripoli and Benghazi.  Those MFP's the Germans could build with the steel they didn't need from the Eastern Front could operate from Malta to either of these ports.  And they did not require port capacity to debark since they were over-the-beach for unloading.

Oh, okay, sure, because forged steel not produced as munitions could just be transmogrified into MFP by the Whatsis Machine.

Yeah, over-the-beach unloading was used so heavily by the Axis...

Jeez the lunacy never stops with the whatif crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im a what if'er, but I like to think I keep at least one foot on dry land.  :)

There was a rather nice book by Tony Williams written some years ago called 'The Foresight War', where two historians, one British, one German, get sent back in time to help their respective countries war effort. And Britain wins, not because we were so amazing or anything, but because Germany didnt really have much capablity to do all the different things it would need to do to win. It cant build jet aircraft in 1940. It cant launch an invasion of the British Isles. It cant build tanks much more effective than it already has. They already nearly maxed themselves out with what they had. We, by making a few smarter decisions could have done better, simply because we had access to the industrial capacity to make it work. I thought that was a remarkably intelligent observation.

And of course, Nazi's are always Nazi's.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Foresight war" was mostly focussing on technology though and created a world in which the UK and Germany avoided many wrong turns they took in arms development. It did however not change the course of the war. So Germany went into Russia, just better prepared, but the Brits were also better prepared for that move... And as much as I love Tony Willimas´ work on anything gun related, this was still a novel. And to be honest not a very good one, for example compared to Red Gambit series by Colin Gee.

In the end nothing changes the strategic fact, that the British empire has more resources, more industrial capacity (and more potential for additional capacity) and more manpower than the Germans. And there is no military option to change this, as any attempt to gain control of more resources will mean a higher need for industrial capacity and manpower as Germany would add new enemies to the list.

Edited by seahawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, i thought it was excellent, and I told him so. Because it accurately described the inability for Germany to introduce high tech weapons more than it actually did. Ok, so they get the Type 21 early, and they get ATGM's into service. And that really is about it.

Well in the novel we win singapore, and we gut the bulk of the Japanese navy in a pyrric victory that makes life an awful lot easier for the Americans. And we land in Normandy in 1943. Not too sure about the last one, but I guess if we didnt tie up so many in the far east fighting in Burma...

Germany, looked at objectively, could not have done much better than it did. Neither could the Japanese. Even if they had taken the Caucasus, they would have had oil, but not the productive capacity to keep up with the Anglo American's. That far, I think he was spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh, i thought it was excellent, and I told him so. Because it accurately described the inability for Germany to introduce high tech weapons more than it actually did. Ok, so they get the Type 21 early, and they get ATGM's into service. And that really is about it.

Well in the novel we win singapore, and we gut the bulk of the Japanese navy in a pyrric victory that makes life an awful lot easier for the Americans. And we land in Normandy in 1943. Not too sure about the last one, but I guess if we didnt tie up so many in the far east fighting in Burma...

Germany, looked at objectively, could not have done much better than it did. Neither could the Japanese. Even if they had taken the Caucasus, they would have had oil, but not the productive capacity to keep up with the Anglo American's. That far, I think he was spot on.

Have not read the book, how does the Royal Navy gain a pyrrhic win over the Japanese fleet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Oh, i thought it was excellent, and I told him so. Because it accurately described the inability for Germany to introduce high tech weapons more than it actually did. Ok, so they get the Type 21 early, and they get ATGM's into service. And that really is about it.

Well in the novel we win singapore, and we gut the bulk of the Japanese navy in a pyrric victory that makes life an awful lot easier for the Americans. And we land in Normandy in 1943. Not too sure about the last one, but I guess if we didnt tie up so many in the far east fighting in Burma...

Germany, looked at objectively, could not have done much better than it did. Neither could the Japanese. Even if they had taken the Caucasus, they would have had oil, but not the productive capacity to keep up with the Anglo American's. That far, I think he was spot on.

No, they also get the jet fighter earlier and use it wiser, have the StG44 early and so on. But due to the nature of the story the UK develops the counter technologies equally early, so obviously Germany never gains an advantage. In the novel Germany and the UK get visitors from the future  in 1934 which try to change the outcome of WW2. This in itself is a disadvantage for the Germans, as by 1934 the UK is far ahead in technology and industrial capacity, as Germany just comes out of the restrictions placed on them after WW1. In addition the German from the future wants to avoid the Cold War that came after WW2 and not for Hitler to win, so he aims for Germany to loose but in a more controlled fashion. This is why he never tells Hitler about the A-bomb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

t's complicated. Most of the French merchant marine was overseas upon the armistice. In the Far East there were 31 French-flagged vessels totaling about 137,000 tons. About a dozen ended up interned and then seized by Japan. In the U.S., 14 vessels totaling 150,746 tons were interned. There was almost nothing other than coasters in the Med, but in Vichy ports there were 90 French, British, Norwegian, and other neutral vessels in their territory on the armistice. At least 38 of them were French vessels. Eventually 63 of them were placed under French flag and used for trade between Vichy and its French possessions, as well as North and South America and Asia, but the British closely monitored them and seized them if they were declared contraband, six in South African waters alone in fall 1941.

They could certainly be seized by the Germans...assuming they violated the armistice without cause and the French made no effort to resist.

In November 1942 the Axis occupied Southern France in Operation Anton, (3 mechanized or panzer, 3 infantry divisions).  During the occupation they captured and reflagged 289,210 tons of French merchant shipping.  When the Allies captured North Africa, they also seized the Vichy ships in these ports.   How much tonnage, I do not know, but it would certain point to the total of Vichy shipping available in 1942 in the Med being somewhere around 400,000 tons.

 

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

Sigh...Tunis to Tripoli is 781 road kilometers. No rail.

What dis?

Tunisian Railways - Wikipedia

Quote

You're adding a 1,562 kilometer round trip to get supplies from Tunis to Tripoli...and then they have to get to wherever the front is.

No, that's not the right way to think about it.  The key is whether or not the supplies reach Tripoli without placing any additional burden on the sea logistics network supplying Tripoli from Italy.   The scheme I outlined was to use Vichy shipping to deliver cargo to Tunisia, then ship this by rail in Tunisia towards Tripoli.  Looks like Gabes is where the rail line ended, so use some of those MFP's the Germans made out of steel not needed for shells on the Eastern Front to move it from Gabes to Tripoli.   Except for the MFP's making the run to Tripoli from the rail head, all the resources used should not impact on the main logistics network.

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

RichTO90 Like most, I suspect you've just never bothered to read my opinion on such and prefer to assume you know what my opinion is.

Looks to me that you just dance around the question and never answer.  So I will repeat it.  If the war is ONLY Germany, Italy and Britain after the fall of France, and the Americans and Russians NEVER come into the war even into the late 1940’s, who do you think was likely to win the war?   RETAC21 thinks that Britain will mobilize Indian troops and win the war, because why couldn’t the British equip, train, and ship 17,000,000 Indian troops to Europe just because they couldn’t even build a bloody tank that wasn’t shit?  Stuart thinks that the British will magically get the A-bomb quicker because of course it must come quicker if 1952 will suddenly not do.  Somebody else thought the Germans would run out of money for pursuing the war, because apparently all known monetary theory just got stood on its head and the control of all labor and resources on a continent does not now translate into an endless ability for more funding.  I think this is all kabuki theatre and that without allies, the Germans will slowly but surely pile drive the British Empire down.

So what is it?  Do the British win or lose, and if they win, how do they do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Did you actually read that? If you did, but did not absorb what was said, then I cannot help you given you live in an alternate world.

 

Quote

No, that's not the right way to think about it.  The key is whether or not the supplies reach Tripoli without placing any additional burden on the sea logistics network supplying Tripoli from Italy.   The scheme I outlined was to use Vichy shipping to deliver cargo to Tunisia, then ship this by rail in Tunisia towards Tripoli.  Looks like Gabes is where the rail line ended, so use some of those MFP's the Germans made out of steel not needed for shells on the Eastern Front to move it from Gabes to Tripoli.   Except for the MFP's making the run to Tripoli from the rail head, all the resources used should not impact on the main logistics network.

Sigh...yes, alternate world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RichTO90 said:

Did you actually read that? If you did, but did not absorb what was said, then I cannot help you given you live in an alternate world.

French North Africa had a light rail line, not just Tunisia.  The link says it ran at least to Gabes the timeframe we're talking of. 

Quote

Sigh...yes, alternate world.

So, to sum up.  Vichy France had about 400,000 tons of shipping plus a major warship fleet.  It's shipping was being used for communications to North Africa because the British had blockaded Gibraltar against them.   So, the French merchant marine was actually moving between Toulon and Tunisia on a regular basis already.  The French had a rail network from Toulon to Germany, and from Tunis to Gabes.  All the Germans had to do was get the French to agree to be paid to haul the freight from Toulon to Gabes.  

The reason why the French Fleet could not escort French convoys to and from the Americas was because the British were holding Gibraltar against them, and because of that, the Germans were the only source of oil for their fleet.  But, if the Germans hold Gibraltar it would be possible for the French to escort their shipping in the Atlantic.

 

Edited by glenn239
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If supplies are being loaded on landing craft for over the beach unloading, wouldn't they need to be pre loaded into trucks?  Doesn't that mean you now need , in effect, a line of trucks a thousand miles long or so filling those MFP?  Can ammo factories make trucks and truck engines and transmissions?  How far can Malta based air interdict night time RN destroyer, cruiser, and submarine sorties?  What extra escort assets do the Axis have to cover the MFP convoys in addition to existing sea traffic?  Do they have mine clearing assets to protect the limited number of suitable beaches?

Have we figured out where the additional labour, factory capacity, and shipyards to make more MFPs and their engines comes from?  Much of the labour to make ammo etc. for the Eastern Front were enslaved from there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...